System and method for evaluating differences in parameters for computer systems using differential rule definitions

• US 7,680,754 B2
• Filed: 09/26/2006
• Issued: 03/16/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 04/21/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Cirba, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Cirba, Inc.
• Inventors: Hillier, Andrew D.
• Primary Examiner(s): Vincent; David R
• Assistant Examiner(s): CHANG, LI WU
• Application Number:
  US11/535,308
• Publication Number:
  US 20070250621A1
• Time in Patent Office: 1,267 Days
• Field of Search: 706/47
• US Class Current: 706/47
• CPC Class Codes: G06N 5/025 Extracting rules from data
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0213 Standardised network management protocols, e.g. simple network management protocol [SNMP]
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/082 the condition being updates or upgrades of network functionality
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 41/0853 by actively collecting configuration information or by backing up configuration information

Abstract

A method for evaluating the differences between computer systems is provided. The systems are evaluated using one or more differential rule definitions and one or more differential rule sets. The rules evaluate the differences between specific parameters in the computer systems and are used to generate a score that indicates how different the systems are based on these parameters and preferably what the cost to remedy the difference would be. The rules can be used for consolidation analysis, compliance analysis etc. The rules each include a weight that quantifies the importance of the rule to compatibility and the score is affected accordingly. Systems can be evaluated against each other or against themselves at different instances in time.

Claims

1. A method of evaluating differences in parameters for one or more computer systems comprising:

a processor obtaining from a data storage device, a first data set pertaining to a plurality of parameters of a first computer system and obtaining from said data storage device, a second data set pertaining to said plurality of parameters for a second computer system to permit comparison of corresponding parameters for said computer systems by comparing each parameter in said first data set to the corresponding parameter in said second data set, wherein said first and second computer systems can be different systems or a same system at different times;

said processor referencing one or more differential rule definitions for selecting one or more particular parameters to be evaluated, said rule definitions including weights indicative of relative importance of differences in said particular parameters as they relate to operation of said systems, one or more of said rule definitions including one or more suppression flags to model dependencies between rule definitions to control whether a particular rule definition is executed based on the result of execution of one or more dependent rule definitions;

for each rule definition, subject to said dependencies derived from said suppression flags, said processor;

i. comparing values for said particular parameters in said first data set to corresponding values for said particular parameters in said second data set;

ii. from said comparing, said processor determining if differences exist between said corresponding values in said data sets;

iii. if said differences exist, said processor determining weights corresponding to said particular parameters from said rule definition, said weights being indicative of the relative importance of said differences for said particular parameters; and

said processor using weights determined for any differences in said plurality of parameters to generate an evaluation of said computer systems against one another.

2. A method according to claim 1, said first data set for a baseline computer system and said second data set for a target computer system, said baseline and target computer systems being different systems.

3. A method according to claim 1, wherein said first data set and said second data set are indicative of the state of said same system at different times.

4. A method according to claim 1 wherein said evaluation comprises a score which is computed by iteratively reducing an initial value to produce a final value and applying one of said weights at each iteration, said final value being used as said score.

5. A method according to claim 1 comprising generating a report including a score for said evaluation and displaying said report on an interface.

6. A method according to claim 1 for evaluating a plurality of different computer systems comprising evaluating each pair of said plurality of computer systems according to said differential rule definition and computing a plurality of scores according to said weight.

7. A method according to claim 6 comprising generating a graphical interface for displaying said plurality of scores, said graphical interface comprising a matrix of cells, each said cell corresponding to a pair of said plurality of computer systems, each row of said matrix indicating one of said plurality of computer systems and each column of said matrix indicating one of said plurality of computer systems, each cell displaying a respective one of said plurality of scores indicating the compatibility of the respective pair of said plurality of systems indicated in the corresponding row and column, and computed according to said weights.

8. A method according to claim 1 wherein said parameter can be such things as:

operating system (OS) type, OS version, time zone, total memory, OS patch level, and OS kernel bits.

9. A method according to claim 1 further comprising said processor referencing a mutex flag in said rule definition to determine whether or not multiple matches in said rule definition incur a single penalty in said evaluation.

10. A method according to claim 1 further comprising said processor determining a remediation cost representing the cost of eliminating a deficiency in said configuration parameter in one of said first and second data sets according to the same parameter in the other of said data sets and providing said remediation cost with said evaluation.

11. A computer readable medium comprising computer executable instructions for evaluating differences in parameters for one or more computer systems, said computer readable medium comprising instructions for:

obtaining from a data storage device, a first data set pertaining to a plurality of parameters of a first computer system and obtaining from said data storage device, a second data set pertaining to said plurality of parameters for a second computer system to permit comparison of corresponding parameters for said computer systems by comparing each parameter in said first data set to the corresponding parameter in said second data set, wherein said first and second computer systems can be different systems or a same system at different times;

referencing one or more differential rule definitions for selecting one or more particular parameters to be evaluated, said rule definitions including weights indicative of relative importance of differences in said particular parameters as they relate to operation of said systems, one or more of said rule definitions including one or more suppression flags to model dependencies between rule definitions to control whether a particular rule definition is executed based on the result of execution of one or more dependent rule definitions;

for each rule definition, subject to said dependencies derived from said suppression flags;

i. comparing values for said particular parameters in said first data set to corresponding values for said particular parameters in said second data set;

ii. from said comparing, determining if differences exist between said corresponding values in said data sets;

iii. if said differences exist, determining weights corresponding to said particular parameters from said rule definition, said weights being indicative of the relative importance of said differences for said particular parameters; and

using weights determined for any differences in said plurality of parameters to generate an evaluation of said computer systems against one another.

12. A computer readable medium according to claim 11, said first data set for a baseline computer system and said second data set for a target computer system, said baseline and target computer systems being different systems.

13. A computer readable medium according to claim 11, wherein said first data set and said second data set are indicative of the state of said same system at different times.

14. A computer readable medium according to claim 11 wherein said evaluation comprises a score which is computed by iteratively reducing an initial value to produce a final value and applying one of said weights at each iteration, said final value being used as said score.

15. A computer readable medium according to claim 11 comprising instructions for generating a report including a score for said evaluation and displaying said report on an interface.

16. A computer readable medium according to claim 11 configured for evaluating a plurality of different computer systems comprising instructions for evaluating each pair of said plurality of computer systems according to said differential rule definition and computing a plurality of scores according to said weight.

17. A computer readable medium according to claim 16 comprising instructions for generating a graphical interface for displaying said plurality of scores, said graphical interface comprising a matrix of cells, each said cell corresponding to a pair of said plurality of computer systems, each row of said matrix indicating one of said plurality of computer systems and each column of said matrix indicating one of said plurality of computer systems, each cell displaying a respective one of said plurality of scores indicating the compatibility of the respective pair of said plurality of systems indicated in the corresponding row and column, and computed according to said weights.

18. A computer readable medium according to claim 11 wherein said parameter can be such things as:

operating system (OS) type, OS version, time zone, total memory, OS patch level, and OS kernel bits.

19. A computer readable medium according to claim 11 further comprising instructions for referencing a mutex flag in said rule definition to determine whether or not multiple matches in said rule definition incur a single penalty in said evaluation.

20. A computer readable medium according to claim 11 further comprising instructions for determining a remediation cost representing the cost of eliminating a deficiency in said configuration parameter in one of said first and second data sets according to the same parameter in the other of said data sets and providing said remediation cost with said evaluation.